03 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to Councilmember Testa, Mr. Wagaman clarified state law generally favors keeping communities of interest whole, but advised there are regular exceptions and a downtown area is a popular example. He said having a goal of intentionally splitting communities of interest would probably run afoul of state law. He confirmed a Councilmember will have to live in their represented district. In response to Councilmember Testa, Mayor Brown advised there are 850 homes in Ruby Hill and if their representative cannot vote it is disappointing to the community. She stated downtown could have the same frustrating situation. In response to Councilmember Testa, Mr. Wagaman confirmed the districts are not allowed to overlap. Tom Willis, attorney with Olson Remcho, LLP, also confirmed districts cannot overlap due to the CVRA. In response to Councilmember Testa, Mr. Willis advised he and City Attorney Sodergren can discuss if there are any solutions to the conflict of interest issue with smaller districts. City Attorney Sodergren advised the Political Reform Act generally does not take districting into account but noted there is a Public Generally Exception from the FPPC allowing an official to participate in the decision if it impacts 15% of the district for a residential property or 25% of the district if it is non-residential. In response to Councilmember Balch, Mr. Willis confirmed in the transition, the current at-large elected officials would not be removed from office before the end of their terms. He explained that in 2022, they would try to align the first two district elections with the two Councilmembers who are up for reelection and the other two in 2024. He confirmed the definitions of residency for candidates do not change with districting. 11. Continued from January 4, 2022 — Discussion regarding Proposed Ballot Measure 21-0016 Amendment 1 which provides that local land use and zoning laws override conflicting State laws, and consider taking a position Assistant to the City Manager Becky Hopkins reported Proposed Ballot Measure 21-0016 would provide that any local ordinances, regulations, or charter provisions regarding land use zoning within the boundaries of a county or city would prevail over state law if a conflict exists. She advised staff recommends not acting at this time to allow for further study to identify any potential consequences. She reported the initiative would override all conflicting state laws except for areas of concern related to the California Coastal Act of 1976, the siting of power plants, and the development of water, communications, or transportation infrastructure. She advised the proposed amendment to the State constitution would prevent the State legislature and local legislative bodies from passing laws invalidating voter-approved local land-use or zoning initiatives, and prohibit the State from changing, granting or denying funding to local governments based on their implementation of this measure. She noted fiscal impacts are unclear at this time. If the initiative were to pass, a city or county could adopt a local ordinance overriding current state laws and requirements but not voter-approved local initiatives. She clarified an ordinance adopted under a city's police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare cannot be enforced if it conflicts with state law. She advised a conflict exists if a local ordinance duplicates state law, contradicts state law, or enters a field fully occupied by state law. The initiative aligns with the principle in the City's Legislative Framework of protecting local control but noted the framework does not provide guidance for taking a position on a proposed ballot initiative. She noted there is a provision considering a scenario where another city's decision harms Pleasanton if there is no state law to remedy the situation. She reported the analysis was performed by the City's advocacy partners from the California League of Cities (Cal Cities). City Council Minutes Paae 6 of 17 � January 18. 2022